TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statement given during the course of survey and income as per the income tax return. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of Real Estate Development. There was a survey u/s 133A of the Act on 1.12.2006. The statement u/s 131 was recorded from the partner of assessee firm Shri Anil Kumar Sharma. In the statement recorded from Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, he had declared an estimated income of Rs. 12.25 crores from the group concern, namely, M/s AHS Joint Venture and assessee firm. However, the return of income of both AHS Joint Venture and assessee firm disclosed only an income of Rs. 11,53,08,342/-. Therefore, the A.O made an addition of Rs. 71,91,658/- being the difference b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rma then his case would have also been taken by the then A.O under compulsory scrutiny. The fact that the ten A.O had taken cases of only M/s AHS Joint Venture and M/s Amrapali Homes in compulsory scrutiny and not the case of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, again points towards the fact that the assessee had declared income only in the hands of M/s AHS Joint Venture and M/s Amrapali Homes and not in the hands of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma. 3.2.3 In the light of the facts stated above, the submission of the assessee that vide letter dated 19/12/2006, it had declared income of Rs. 12.25 crores in the hands of M/s AHS Joint Venture; M/s Amrapali Homes and Mr. Anil Kumar Sharms instead of in the hands of only M/s AHS Joint Venture and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as still there before completion of previous year, but A.O got disclosure from appellant's partner in advance to surrender income and pay taxes. The partner admitted to pay advance tax on 4 installments on an income of Rs. 12.25 crores as mentioned above. But while finalizing the accounts, the firm found that the income as per its books of a/cs was deficient by Rs. 71,91,658/- from the two firms from disclosure given in survey. As per AR, this deficiency was 5.87% only. The A.O should have pointed out defects from books of a/cs before making any addition. Any addition on estimate basis in a slip shod manner without rejection of books of a/cs cannot stand the test of appeal. 4.1 The AR had given his final submission dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961 - Survey - Whether Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath; so statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition - Held, year [in favour of assessee]. The addition of Rs. 71,91,658/- was not justified. Therefore, this addition of dispute of Rs. 71,91,658/- is hereby deleted." 5. The Revenue being aggrieved is an appeal before us. The DR supported the order of assessment, whereas the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the income tax authorities and supported the findings of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. A survey pro....